Difficult question because if the Iraqis resist a US sponsored dictator, Americans will bomb homes, hospitals and schools. In effect total destruction and massacre like they commiting in Fallujah. On the other hand If they dont fight and resist, Americans will be encouraged to bomb and occupy other muslim countries like Syria and Iran. They were actually talking alot about that in June 2003 before the resistance started. If you remember, the Fallujans did not fire a single shot untill Augist 2003 when Americans opened fire on protestors from a school in Fallujah. It resulted in massive retaliation from Fallujans who had initially actually welcomed the Americans as liberators.

In my view it depends whether you support what the insurgents are supposedly fighting for, which is as I understand it by and large an Isalmic State.

If you oppose this then the insurgents tactics are sound, they fight and die and hence have no vote come the election, their actions justify harsh measures by the interim regime against them which could spill over into those who support their cause but not their tactics and lead to Sunni islamist parties being disbarred from the election.

If you support this then their tactics are foolish. Had the various armed groups pledged not to undertake any attacks until the election, but had at the same time pledged a co-ordinated nationwide uprising if the elections were not free and fair and islamist parties allowed to stand then they would

a) still be alive to vote
b) give the interim no reason for harsh measures
c) be seen to be committed to the Iraqi people having their voice heard
d) be in step with world opinon that the election must be a fair one

So basically whether you think they are right to take up arms depends on whether you support their cause or not.

Their cause isn't to establish Shariah, their current objective is to drive the foreign invaders out of their country. Neither is their tactic to beat to the occupation in a traditional sense. They want to keep the occupation bogged and busy so eventually they're forced to retreat. It's like having a pic nic outside in the backyard, but the mosquitos get too bad and everyone retreats back inside the house. A wolf or a bear will instantly drive the people back into the house. A bunch of mosquitos can eventually do the same and drive the people out of the backyard and into the house - all they need is pressure and time. Pressure and time.

Establishing a government is an after-the-fact process. It seems everyone who's for this war thinks Muslims are stupid or something and can't run their own affairs. They simply dismiss any legitimate claims for a right to resist occupation with rhetoric that nicely says "We know what's best for them."

Ok, if there aim is for Allied troops to leave then lets look at the options.

Option 1 - declare an end to violent acts, support the democratic process, again backed by the promise that they will launch an uprising if the elections are not free and fair. Then vote for parties which will tell Allied forces to leave after the election.

Option 2 - The one they have taken - attack Mosques, UN HQ, Iraqi police, ING, iraqi & foreign civilians and Allied troops. This ensures the need for Allied troops to be there to help in keeping the insurgency down and makes it more likely that the people will support parties which back a continued Allied miltary presence. At the same time attacks on Allied troops ensure that bigger and more fortified and hence permenant Allied bases have to be built.

So again, if you support their aim you would oppose their tactics in my view.

The analogy of mosquito's just doesn't wash since America holds the largest DE-FOGGER on the planet.They will simply continue to swat at and destroy all the mosquito's in the swamp until there are no more pesky mosquitoes left.They have the ability to defog the entire country and rid the country of these harmful and pesky nuisances.

It is better for all to cease fighting, giving American military no further reason to remain on Iraqi soil.As yorkshireman pointed out, electing a government which would insist on the Americans vacating Iraqi soil is their best method of ridding themselves of the occupation forces.

the thing is most people with a fair knowledge of history and currrent events do not trust the american government and rightly so. If they intend to establish anything that is not essentially a puppet government then i would like to know.

Firstly, I would say that they (Fallujans) should retreat like the mujahideen in Afghanistan. That would be wiser. It would mean that the Americans will have overall control but they would have to fight a guerilla war that will last a long time InshaAllah.

As muslims, we should be wise and follow the sunnah. The sunnah is to prepare the best we could in terms of military preparation. At the moment, the muslims are scattered and weak. The muslims need to go underground, regroup and hit them hard.

My second opinion is that if the muslims don't fight now, it would give an indication that the interim government is legitimate. It would also legitimize the occupation of the American troops. Kufr culture will become dominent. People will start to forget Allah.

the thing is most people with a fair knowledge of history and currrent events do not trust the american government and rightly so. If they intend to establish anything that is not essentially a puppet government then i would like to know.

It would be very foolish for Muslims to trust the American government. We have no problems with Americans living in Muslim lands. The problem is that they are occupying muslim lands militarily.

As we know, the Brits ruled India [comprising of Bangladesh, Pakistan and India] with less than ten thousand troops. How did they do that? They employed Indians to work for them. So the Indians were helping the Brits oppress Indians. How foolish is that?

But the Iraqis are different. They seem to be more aware of their history. The Brits were in Iraq 100 years ago. They made the same promises that the Americans are making. They set up an Iraqi army, police etc. The Brits were much wiser than the Americans. That is why it may have worked.

The muslims of Iraq should never accept the puppet government. They need to resist those who try to implement it. Allah will only give us his nasra if we truely work for it. The muslims of Iraq should also take the advice of AMS.

The case is very simple. Crusaders Have come back to colonise Iraq. Muslims will never accsept it.

Allah swt gave us Jihad as a toll to defend ourslelves and utimatly make peace with it. Peace comes with self detirmeniation and freedom to worship Allah swt as you want. It does not come with 200 000 Kuffar troops who rape and sodomise and kill muslims as we have Seen.

The Mujahadin Iraq under the leadership of the MSA (ULAMA) should fight the ockupants with all means. Just as the russian kuffar were in Afghanistan.

The case is very simple. Crusaders Have come back to colonise Iraq. Muslims will never accsept it.

THE JEWS AND THE SAMARITANS

For more than six hundred years the Jews of Judea, and later on those of Galilee also, had been at enmity with the Samaritans. This ill feeling between the Jews and the Samaritans came about in this way: About seven hundred years B.C., Sargon, king of Assyria, in subduing a revolt in central Palestine, carried away and into captivity over twenty-five thousand Jews of the northern kingdom of Israel and installed in their place an almost equal number of the descendants of the Cuthites, Sepharvites, and the Hamathites. Later on, Ashurbanipal sent still other colonies to dwell in Samaria.
The religious enmity between the Jews and the Samaritans dated from the return of the former from the Babylonian captivity, when the Samaritans worked to prevent the rebuilding of Jerusalem. Later they offended the Jews by extending friendly assistance to the armies of Alexander. In return for their friendship Alexander gave the Samaritans permission to build a temple on Mount Gerizim, where they worshiped Yahweh and their tribal gods and offered sacrifices much after the order of the temple services at Jerusalem. At least they continued this worship up to the time of the Maccabees, when John Hyrcanus destroyed their temple on Mount Gerizim. The Apostle Philip, in his labors for the Samaritans after the death of Jesus, held many meetings on the site of this old Samaritan temple.
The antagonisms between the Jews and the Samaritans were time-honored and historic; increasingly since the days of Alexander they had had no dealings with each other. The twelve apostles were not averse to preaching in the Greek and other gentile cities of the Decapolis and Syria, but it was a severe test of their loyalty to the Master when he said, "Let us go into Samaria." But in the year and more they had been with Jesus, they had developed a form of personal loyalty which transcended even their faith in his teachings and their prejudices against the Samaritans.

One would think that after four thousand years of toil and strife, doing battle across fence lines, people would eventual figuire out it's not worth the time and effort to keep throwing stones at their neighbors.

IF I, were to say, "Let us go into Samaria."with a message of hope, would I get stoned to death?I am sincerely asking, especially regarding Owl Mirror's demise.
Please, do not take these questions as an ego trip on my behalf but, realize that any single human has the potential to become another Alexander the Great.
Now that we are imagining the prospect of a leader being born unto this world which might come forward, let us remember each persons name, who has died due to war.
This person, with the potential of equaling or surpassing Alexanders accomplishments, DIED as "colateral damage" while leading his sister to safety.

We must also, IMHO, consider the effects not only on population size but, the gene pool of any society.
Sending the wretched and poor, out to conduct a war for anothers cause, all the while promising them great rewards, when they return home, financially as well as even greater rewards if one dies during battle, is cowardly at best.

Here's a thought, why don't Russia, China, the USA, the European Union, NATO, either independantly or in colusion with a partner, begin a land grab?
Sure, puppet regimes are propped up but, these countries never occupy a country and absorb it into it's own empire anymore.
The answer is WEAPONS.
That is why this war is being waged against these individuals such as Usama Bin Laden, etc.
It all comes down to the age old question, why build a weapon, if you aren't going to use it?
Allowing someone with a grudge, or bone to pick, aquiring nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, with nothing to lose but a few poor, misguided brethren, seems a price worth paying. Doesn't it ?
Then the question comes to my mind, whats left worth fight for?
Skirmishes develop into police actions, then full scale warfare.
It's also a game of tit-4-tat.

Now that we are imagining the prospect of a leader being born unto this world which might come forward,
let us remember each persons name, who has died due to war.
This person, with the potential of equaling or surpassing Alexanders accomplishments, DIED as "colateral damage" while leading his sister to safety.

Option 1 - declare an end to violent acts, support the democratic process, again backed by the promise that they will launch an uprising if the elections are not free and fair. Then vote for parties which will tell Allied forces to leave after the election.

How can you have free elections, when you’re occupied? When your population is being slaughtered? One hundred thousand dead Iraqis at the hands of the Americans since the “war” were ended.

I read every other day about some family wiped out at the hands of the Americans. Plenty of soldiers have written about their hate for the Iraqis and their motivation in paying them back for 9-11. If this was happening in the UK who would be thinking about elections?

Theses deaths seem to not figure in the logic of people. Why is that? 100 thousand dead British or Americans who certainly cause out rage, why not Iraqis?

People seem to think that a neo-conservative evangelical administration full of Zionists is in someway looking out for the Iraqi people? Or that the president who according to his biographer believes he is on a crusade against Islam, is in someway looking out for the Iraqi people.

People seem to believe that a nation that has demolished democracy in the middle-east is now going to defend it?

I think it’s just wishful thinking and ignorance of current and past events that lead people to those conclusions.

The only real democracy in the middle-east is lebanon, and the american administration had nothing to do with it.

Option 2 - The one they have taken - attack Mosques, UN HQ, Iraqi police, ING, iraqi & foreign civilians and Allied troops. This ensures the need for Allied troops to be there to help in keeping the insurgency down and makes it more likely that the people will support parties which back a continued Allied miltary presence. At the same time attacks on Allied troops ensure that bigger and more fortified and hence permenant Allied bases have to be built.

We have to begin by considering events in their chorological order.

Cause and consequence then things become clear.

The occupation began first, the resistance then emerged in response.

Before the invasion their where NO alqedia groups or Mossad groups bombing and beheading people.

Due to the invasion and the continued occupation their now is.

Therefore to end violence, the occupation must end first.

Is their no end to peoples gullibility? First we are told sanctions are needed because of WMD (1/2 million Iraqi children die) and the UN representative calls it genocide. Then we are under immediate threat and we need to invade.

100 thousand dead people later, with no WMD. We are now told that zaraqwi is now a evil mastermind so we can level civilians cities, yet each time zaraqwi is bombed the only dead we see are children.

We then group legitimate resistance groups, alquedia and Mossad trained Kurds cutting peoples heads off under one big banner to tarnish the image of the legitimate resistance to a illegal occupation. Now we have people suitably sacred we can kill civilians with no questions asked.

Seems like some people fall for each and every lie feed them and never learn. Is their any point when you will begin to question those leaders’ motives and actions?

Or is it easy to shrug of lies and propaganda and when it is others paying the price.

http://www.tigerforcerecon.com/
Our noble history is continuing in Iraq, as the Tiger Force carries on.
We will honor these newest veterans when photos become available.

Re: The "noble history" recited above, are these men murderers or men who seek peace?

You just ask questions ? What is your opinon.

If your political discourse consists of War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength, then yes.

Examples of prior modus operandi and why the democratic elections don't wash.Include Operation Phoenix, an agency operation that assassinated and tortured tens of thousands of mostly innocent South Vietnamese civilians from 1967-1970. Their aim was to kill 1800 people a month.

Thieu had been elected President of South Vietnam in 1967 by stuffing the ballot boxes and using Phoenix to neutralize his political opponents. He also sabotaged peace negotiations in 1968, based on a promise from Richard Nixon that if he did so, Nixon would give him increased financial and political support. Thieu dutifully sabotaged the negotiations, costing the Democrats the 1968 presidential election. Having stolen his office, like Nixon and Bush, Thieu (again like Nixon and Bush) preferred political internal security over a peaceful settlement that would end the national emergency, suspend all police-state actions (like administrative detention), and allow for majority rule. Thieu's actions led to congressional investigations in February 1970, and the charge in the New York Times (17 February 1970, article by Robert Kaiser) that the CIA had used the Phoenix Program as "an instrument of mass political murder" to neutralize politicians and activists who opposed Thieu or espoused peace. "By analogy," said Representative Ogden Reid (D-NY) in 1971, "if the Union had had a Phoenix program during the Civil War, its targets would have been civilians like Jefferson Davis or the mayor of Macon, Georgia."

In Vietnam the Phoenix Program killed 40,000 civilian between August 68 and mid-71;

Vietnam, 75 Counter-spy magazine describes Phoenix Program as "the most indiscriminate and massive program of political murder since the nazi death camps of world war two." Counterspy spring/summer

If your political discourse consists of War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength, then yes.

Examples of prior modus operandi and why the democratic elections don't wash.[font=arial,helvetica,verdana]Include Operation Phoenix, an agency operation that assassinated and tortured tens of thousands of mostly innocent South Vietnamese civilians from 1967-1970. Their aim was to kill 1800 people a month.

The soldiers of America's military do not dictate policy which leads to conflicts.
They are the soldiers who stand at the ready, each specialized in a task, to go to war when called upon.
It's a far cry from 'believers' who sneak down the alleyways at night to meet and plan.
Fanaticism and leaders who can incite believers to fight beside them in a guerilla war can and does inflict damage but, it will never defeat the American Military.
They will just strangle the throat of their enemy that much harder.

When an American soldier has no reason to fire his weapon, it remains restrained.
Of course there are a few deranged people admist the crowd of soldiers who go over the line but,
they are aborations and not the whole'occupying force'.

The soldiers of America's military do not dictate policy which leads to conflicts.
They are the soldiers who stand at the ready, each specialized in a task, to go to war when called upon.
It's a far cry from 'believers' who sneak down the alleyways at night to meet and plan.
Fanaticism and leaders who can incite believers to fight beside them in a guerilla war can and does inflict damage but, it will never defeat the American Military.
They will just strangle the throat of their enemy that much harder.

When an American soldier has no reason to fire his weapon, it remains restrained.
Of course there are a few deranged people admist the crowd of soldiers who go over the line but,
they are aborations and not the whole'occupying force'.[/size]

This is a misrepresentation of the facts. unfortunately, and I think Stanley you should know that also. If both Jews and western people in general are opposed to the brutality of these incading occupying sources, then I think the people themselves have a right to make a stand.

If someone comes into you r house at night, and then the next morning you find him there in your living room tellling you that you can use the bathroom between certain hours and that certain rooms are out of bounds - u would be devastated.

Think about it with an open mind, not a mind that has been diseased by the zionistic media.

Ok, if there aim is for Allied troops to leave then lets look at the options.

Option 1 - declare an end to violent acts, support the democratic process, again backed by the promise that they will launch an uprising if the elections are not free and fair. Then vote for parties which will tell Allied forces to leave after the election.

Option 2 - The one they have taken - attack Mosques, UN HQ, Iraqi police, ING, iraqi & foreign civilians and Allied troops. This ensures the need for Allied troops to be there to help in keeping the insurgency down and makes it more likely that the people will support parties which back a continued Allied miltary presence. At the same time attacks on Allied troops ensure that bigger and more fortified and hence permenant Allied bases have to be built.

So again, if you support their aim you would oppose their tactics in my view.

Americans lived under the rule of the British, the Americans resisted. Germans invaded France, the French resisted. The British invaded India, India resisted. Russia invaded Afghanistan, the Afghanis resisted. Cause and effect.

At the time of all these, the British were saying Americans were destabilizing their own country. That Indians were destabilizing their own country. Russia called the Afghan Arabs nothing but extremists who wanted to destabilize their own country. The foreign armies were always attacked. Police stations were attacked. Collaborators were executed. Road side bombs were used. Sometimes, innocent civilians were killed. Nobody is perfect.

What we do know is that the United States is a foreign invader imposing a puppet as every invader in history has done.

The only reason people oppose the resistance in Iraq is because they distrust Muslims. They do not trust religious Muslims in power. You think you know what's best for us, york? You think that the coalition and the West - who understand nothing about Islamic and Arab culture - know what's best for us? You think that spreading your freedom dust by force will fix all of your problems. We don't want your worldly idea of freedom.

This is a misrepresentation of the facts. unfortunately,
and I think Stanley you should know that also.
~
Think about it with an open mind, not a mind that has been diseased by the zionistic media.

First, I do not believe my mind has been "diseased by the Zionistic media" in any fashion as I am an independent thinker and researcher.
Perhaps the point that was lost in my post is that, our military is comprised of disciplined soldiers who take orders from their superiors and follow them to the letter, unless they are deemed to be illegal.
There do exist some bad apples among the group who do indeed step over the line and commit atrocities but, that is NOT the nature of the entire military force.This is in contrast to those called forth for a HOLY WAR, which instills free reign upon the individuals actions for the goal of fighting the occupiers.

You see, lumping every American soldier into the group of bad apples is exactly like lumping all Muslims in with the actions of those who commit atrocities in the name of Islam.

How can trust and respect ever be accomplished if we view an entire society by the actions of a few?

(#1) ~ I do truly seek to understand Islam and it's inner working throughout societies.
Merely through the act of seeking understanding does not compell me to embrace that which I am studying.
(#2) ~ Woven throughout my posts, I do present a different path or point of view which might bring about clarity in someone's acceptance or denial of the particular aspect being discussed. Take the title of this post:Thread: Should the Insurgents fight or accept Alawi?Fighting or accepting Alawi should not be the question but, how best to unify all of Iraq into a soveriegn nation after the fall of Saddam & the Bathist regime?The only people who are making this conflict anything more than the removal of Saddam & the election of a different form of government which will not harbor agressive actions toward it's neighbors should be the only aim.
(#3) ~ When I wondered aloud regarding if an Islamic candidate who espouses the creation of an Islamic state could get elected, I was merely attempting to have Muslims look in the mirror and see if they indeed are ready for this type of government to become the law of the land throughout IRAQ?
If this ideal isn't electable by the vast majority of Iraqi citizens,
then it shouldn't be forced upon them through might.

Originally Posted by omario

what is ur aim bro?

Seeking God and understanding the motivation behind his actions.

Seeking understanding of those who profess faith in this same God.

Finding resolutions to problems which keep us separated & throwing stones at each other.

Exhibiting the other sides point of view, so that dialog can ensue.(Devil's advocate?)

When I voice disagreement about a topic, it is not an attack against ISLAM per se but, attempting to understand what ever would possess a man of the twenty-first century to obey fifth century doctrine.

A question, for clarities sake:Is it permissible under Islamic tradition or law, for Yasser Arafat or Osama Bin Laden to obtain interest on their financial investments?These are two personalities which in some circles are highly regarded.If these two pillars of Islamic hopes and dreams were found to be living iniquitous lives,would it change any Muslims perceptions of them as great men, an example to follow?

Originally Posted by omario

what is ur aim bro?

Is the above question, regarded as anti-islamic ?
Or, by asking such questions, Islam is revealed as the true arbitrator of sincere justice?
In a Muslim society, who holds the authorities to task for their actions?

I guess, in a nut shell, I attempt to draw out conversations that might otherwise go unspoken or challenged.

The soldiers of America's military do not dictate policy which leads to conflicts.
They are the soldiers who stand at the ready, each specialized in a task, to go to war when called upon.
It's a far cry from 'believers' who sneak down the alleyways at night to meet and plan.
Fanaticism and leaders who can incite believers to fight beside them in a guerilla war can and does inflict damage but, it will never defeat the American Military.
They will just strangle the throat of their enemy that much harder.

When an American soldier has no reason to fire his weapon, it remains restrained.
Of course there are a few deranged people admist the crowd of soldiers who go over the line but,
they are aborations and not the whole'occupying force'.[/size]

Did you read the article? Let me quote again

"the most indiscriminate and massive program of political murder since the nazi death camps of world war two."

How can you ignore that ? and how can you reduce a deliberate government policy to a "few deranged people admist the crowd of soldiers who go over the line".

The fact you are a soldier does not absolve you from mass murder of civilians. At the Nuremberg trials the defense of "Just following orders" was not accepted. Even when not following such orders would have meant the soldier being court marshaled and executed.

You’re clumsy over simplification of the insurgency, who have a wide range of motivations but are at essence just defending their land and their homes in many cases.
The fact you find people who follow orders in the mass murder of civilians, preferable to people defending their homes, defies logic.

The fact is the insurgents do not need to defeat the american military to win. I can list out conflicts where america might have won some battles but lost the war.

p.s I'm still waiting for you to say something that isn't rammbeling.

The question is:

Considering that the US in South east asia used the Phoenix Program as "an instrument of mass political murder" to neutralize politicians and activists who opposed Thieu or espoused peace. "Why should we think that Iraq will be any different? Considering that American is not shy of removing democratic governments (Numerous examples) who it considers against its national interests or placing Undemocratic governments in power.

Why should we after all the proven lies choose to believe them this time?

Americans lived under the rule of the British, the Americans resisted. Germans invaded France, the French resisted. The British invaded India, India resisted. Russia invaded Afghanistan, the Afghanis resisted. Cause and effect.

At the time of all these, the British were saying Americans were destabilizing their own country. That Indians were destabilizing their own country. Russia called the Afghan Arabs nothing but extremists who wanted to destabilize their own country. The foreign armies were always attacked. Police stations were attacked. Collaborators were executed. Road side bombs were used. Sometimes, innocent civilians were killed. Nobody is perfect.

What we do know is that the United States is a foreign invader imposing a puppet as every invader in history has done.

The only reason people oppose the resistance in Iraq is because they distrust Muslims. They do not trust religious Muslims in power. You think you know what's best for us, york? You think that the coalition and the West - who understand nothing about Islamic and Arab culture - know what's best for us? You think that spreading your freedom dust by force will fix all of your problems. We don't want your worldly idea of freedom.

Our freedom is in the next life.

I think a better event to look at than those you raised is the Allied invaision of Germany to end WWII. There two approachs were used, that of the Western Allies who set up democracy and invested in rebuilding and that of the Soviets who installed a puppet and ran the country according to their own needs.

The Allies in Iraq have said they will persue the former approach, some people like yourself believe they intend to take the latter approach.

The question then is which is the best way to ensure they stick to the delcared intention - as outlined in my previous posts the insurgents make permenant bases etc much more likely rather than less likely.

I think a better event to look at than those you raised is the Allied invaision of Germany to end WWII. There two approachs were used, that of the Western Allies who set up democracy and invested in rebuilding and that of the Soviets who installed a puppet and ran the country according to their own needs.

The Allies in Iraq have said they will persue the former approach, some people like yourself believe they intend to take the latter approach.

The question then is which is the best way to ensure they stick to the delcared intention - as outlined in my previous posts the insurgents make permenant bases etc much more likely rather than less likely.

Permenant bases are already planned and have been built. "more likely rather than less likely"... they are already their.

The analogy with WW2 is false.

Germany had a history of democracy and Hitler was democratically elected. He led a very popular government that had the support of the majority of the German people.

Iraq has no history of democracy. Even such figures as Max Boot of the Council on Foreign Relations, a proponent of military intervention for spreading democracy and free markets, says that imposing liberal democracies by force in the developing world has been less than successful.

what amazes me regarding the points of those who say the insurgents should accept this situation, they would never accept it

if saddam entered england or the usa, americans would be the LAST people to accept it

but for some reason, they want the iraqis to accept it

i cant see that position

expediency, i guess there can be a case made, but to not even acknowledge that the invading party is there WAAAY past any meaningful purpose, is a testimony that there purposes were diabolical from the beginning

expediency, i guess there can be a case made, but to not even acknowledge that the invading party is there WAAAY past any meaningful purpose, is a testimony that there purposes were diabolical from the beginning

The meaningful purpose is fighting the insurgents. No insurgents, no reason to still be there.

insurgents are the people, the will of the people is what america is supposed to be there for, if the people dont want you there, then just leave

you dont attempt to dominate a people, and when they dont lay down, you perpetuate the domination and use that as an excuse for your domination

duh

That would be logical were the intention to dominate them and "the people" were represented by the insurgents. As the stated intention is to allow free elections so the people will be for the first time in control of their country and the level of support for the insurgents is unknown then it's not logical. Now suppose you don't believe that the intention is to leave if asked...what's the best way to prove that? Let elections take place and then if the government asks the Coalition to leave and they don't then have your insurgency.

I must say I'm confused as to why those who claim to know the will of the people seem to be the ones most desperate to avoid free and fair elections.

because its the american way to handle things by electoral vote does not mean it all must be handled in the way you as an american feel it should. This is the arrogance America runs with.

Let that country be to handle things in the manner they choose to. America is there to take control of that country, and just as you have shown us until they do things just as the Americans say they will not leave until that has been done. All else is simply an excuse.

They are there to do the same thing they have attempted to do to Afghanistan and other countries just like it. Heck they did the same thing to this country when they took it over from the Indians (Native Americans). They took control of America No differently then they are trying to do with these said Muslim countries only now they have better toys (Weapons of Mass Destruction mind you).

They are only causing more insuregency throughout the world by the actions they are taking. Leave that place allow the innocents to handle the affairs of their own country. What about that is so difficult???